[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Sauropods vs. Gravity - Mr. Holtz

Paul Cambridge (pcambridge@explorer.org) wrote:

<Further more, I really hope you view evolution as a purposeful means of
how everything works, and not as a happy accident. Do you think everything
that has ever developed was an accident? Because that is what it sounds
like you are saying.
When I remarked, "So why did we need such a huge forager?"
And you replied, "Got nothing to do with "need"."...
It sounds like you are throwing out the whole idea of a purpose for the
proliferation of life. While there may not be a cognitive thought process
going on, as in the way we humans problem solve, but there definitely is a
means behind evolution. We see that in the patterns scientists track and
follow, known in biology and all other life and earth sciences. If there
were no patterns, we would have nothing to stand on as far as an 
interpretation of anything. So you see, there has to be a "need" for
organisms in an environment. Finding out what that need is, is what
science is all about. Think about what YOU are saying, man.>

  I think Dr. Holtz (PhD) knows very well what he's saying, but pardon me
for butting in on this for a moment. I wish to add my own statements to
this discussion, perhaps clear up a few misconceptions which I perceive.

  Evolution is the condition in which organsisms change over time. An
organism cannot exist through need, as to persume this is to suggest that
niches and ecologies are perfect and absolute. There are gaps, absences,
and ecologies without perfect organisms adapated to suit "needs."
Organisms are, by their own right, present, not through any contrivance,
design, etc.

  Otherwise, the statement above can be perceived to be an assumption for
the directed-ness or control of a system through such evenly balanced
ecological protocols as to conceive of a "perfect" or _big D word followed
by big C word_ event. By what protocols or control paradigms does
evolution work that it suits needs, as if an ecology "needs" anything? An
ecology is the sum of its interacting parts, not a paradigm that requires
parts to be present, but then if they aren't, they must be required for
the ecology to function. Sorry, not how it works. An ecology fails if a
component is lost, but then it becomes a different ecology.

  I hope this helps in the statements regarding evolution.

  As for the biology of animals ... to use an example: we know sauropods
walked over land, were highly terrestrial, and held their tails and necks
off the ground, so despite any manner of laws of physics, sauropods were
capable of systems of engineering and biology not presently understood. To
take physics and say that "no, sauropods could not do this __, or that __"
is to ignore the mechanical and osteological data that says they could.
Otherwise, we're back at that old German study that tried to say sauropods
were sprawled-limb because they could not possibly defy the physics of
gravity and hold themselves up, or were so heavy that they must have been
(to use a Bakkerism) "up to their armpits in muck" just to support their
mass. Analysis of the bones and muscle attachments in some dinosaurs show
that they were capable of running, and applied physics cannot fully
account for the things we see. This suggests that our understanding of the
animals requires elucidation, not that physics indicates conditions were 

Jaime A. Headden

  Little steps are often the hardest to take.  We are too used to making leaps 
in the face of adversity, that a simple skip is so hard to do.  We should all 
learn to walk soft, walk small, see the world around us rather than zoom by it.

Do You Yahoo!?
Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email!